allocation of social housing to recent migrants

report for the Local Government Association by the Chartered Institute of Housing Summary of Main Findings

1. ‘Recent migrants’ is a broad term which can be interpreted in different ways. The report looks as far as possible at information available on all recent migrants, but many of the national and local studies or datasets focus specifically on migrant workers from the EU accession states.
2. Data on use of social housing is limited, although there are much better data about migrants from accession states than on other types of migrant.
3. All the evidence points to very limited use of social housing by accession states’ migrants. There are only very small numbers entering the social housing system – usually concentrated in particular places.
4. There are some indications that use may grow if accession states’ migrants decide to stay longer-term, or apply for social housing because of poor conditions in the private rented sector.
5. This is backed by very small but growing numbers of such migrants being accepted as homeless by local authorities.
6. As far as migrants more generally are concerned, there is evidence that some groups (eg accepted refugees) use the social housing system but there are far fewer sources of information on these other types of new migration, together with definitional problems about who is a ‘migrant’.
7. The Labour Force Survey provides data on the use of social housing by people living here who were born abroad – but this does of course include people who migrated at any stage of their lives, not just recent migrants.

1 Background

LGA commissioned this report, which is a desk study of the available evidence on the issue. The report has looked at the evidence (as far as it is available) on the questions: To what extent are migrants being allocated new social housing lettings? - as indicated by returns from local authorities (LAs) and housing associations (HAs)

To what extent is there evidence of social housing demand not yet reflected in lettings? – as indicated by local surveys, reports of use of housing advice services, homelessness data, etc.

To what extent are migrants making use of other tenures and therefore by definition are not social housing tenants?

For comparison, the study also includes some information on housing allocations to BME households generally.

This brief report summarises the results of the desk study on these questions, under four headings: government statistics at national level, other national-level studies, regional studies and local studies. It begins with a summary of the categories of people covered by the report. It ends with a brief summary of conclusions.

2 Categories of People Referred to in the Study

The terms used in the report are described briefly below. Appendix 1 describes categories of migrant in more detail, and makes reference to their eligibility for social housing.

**Migrants** People without UK citizenship, who have recently entered the UK for work, study or family reasons, and are not short-term visitors (such as tourists). Many of the studies cited refer specifically to migrant workers. Many also include the forced migration of asylum seekers and refugees.

**Accession state nationals (or migrants)** This usually refers mainly to people from the eight countries (A8) which entered the European Union in 2004 (not including Malta and Cyprus). It can also include people from the two countries (A2) which acceded to the EU in 2007 (although their entry to the UK has been more restricted).

**Non-UK nationals** People who do not hold British citizenship. Information is collected on this category of people for lettings of social housing (see below).

**Foreign born** Some of the sources cited in this paper use data which refer to the country where people were born. About one in twelve people living in the UK was born elsewhere, and of these half describe themselves as ‘white’. Many foreign-born people are of course UK citizens and would no longer be regarded as migrants. **BME people**

Black and minority ethnic (BME) is used to refer to people who do not classify themselves as ‘white’ in the census or in surveys based on census categories.(^1) About half of the BME population were born in the UK, and of course ‘BME’ does not equate with ‘migrant’.

The report concentrates on England, although some studies cited may be wider in their coverage.

### 3 Eligibility for Social Housing

Eligibility of new migrants for social housing (or assistance under homelessness legislation, or welfare benefits) is a complex subject, and this summary should not be used as a guide to decision-making in actual cases. Broadly, restrictions on eligibility for social housing concern only local authority (LA) housing and LA nominations to housing associations.(^2) Categories of people ineligible for council housing and homelessness assistance include:

- **Most asylum seekers** – who receive limited assistance with accommodation through the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA).
- **People allowed entry to the country on the basis of having ‘no recourse to public funds’** – such as spouses of people already resident here, students, or work permit holders from non-European countries.
- **Workers from A8 countries, registered on the Worker Registration Scheme, who have been here for less than 12 months and lose their job.**

Refugees are eligible for council housing once they have a positive decision, giving them a right to remain in Britain. Workers from EEA countries (see appendix 1), including those whose work is temporarily disrupted by sickness or unemployment, are eligible for council housing (but not if they enter the UK as jobseekers). A8 nationals who are registered and are working are also eligible, and after 12 months have the same rights as EEA nationals generally.

Many migrants, while theoretically eligible, are very unlikely to receive housing either because they are single people or because they are here for insufficient time to qualify. There is also widespread misinformation about eligibility, which may mean that some people who could qualify for housing are discouraged from doing so.

______________________________________________________________________

(^1) However, there is ambiguity about the term, as some people who might be regarded as ‘BME’ might classify themselves as ‘white-other’ in census terms, eg people from the Middle East. Where possible, the paper either identifies ‘white-other’ households separately or includes them with the BME data. This is indicated where it occurs.

(^2) In theory, many housing associations could house recent migrants debarred from council housing, but in practice they do not do so in most cases because they are also likely to be ineligible for housing benefit. 4 Government Statistics at National Level

The national statistics available on migration, and their strengths and weaknesses, are fully covered in the report *Estimating the Scale and Impacts of Migration at Local Level* (see below) and will not be repeated here. There are two national-level sources of information on allocations of social housing and homelessness assistance: homelessness returns by LAs and CORE data supplied by HAs and many LAs. Earlier data on housing and A8 nationals are also collated in the periodic *Accession Monitoring Reports* from the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA). This section covers these three sources.

**Homelessness returns**

Known as P1E returns, these provide quarterly data on action by LAs under homelessness provisions. From 1 May 2004, CLG amended the rules on eligibility for an allocation of housing and for homelessness assistance. These changes applied to applicants who are persons from abroad and who are not subject to immigration control. This includes applicants from any country within the enlarged European Economic Area (EEA – see appendix 1). Since April 2005, CLG has collected separate information on access to social housing and homelessness assistance for households from the A8 countries. However, there are concerns about the accuracy of the data from P1E returns that relate to new lettings, and they are being replaced by the CORE data (see below).

The homelessness data refer to the help offered under homelessness legislation, which in most cases will mean offers of temporary accommodation (rather than permanent rehousing - which is typically offered immediately only to ten percent of households accepted as homeless).

In the twelve months to September 2007, 417 households from A8 countries were offered such help, less than one per cent of the total. It is worth noting, however, that there is a rising trend (albeit within very small numbers of cases): in a typical quarter, the numbers helped are now about 100 nationally as opposed to about 50 per quarter when data first started to be collected four years ago.

These data are not analysed separately to show the actions that resulted from the 417 acceptances in the last twelve months, but if they were typical cases, they would have led to about 40 immediate lettings of permanent accommodation, with an unknown proportion of those in temporary accommodation gaining permanent lettings at a later date. All of these lettings would be included in (and so are not additional to) the CORE data (see below). **CORE data**

CORE data are collected quarterly from all HAs with more than 250 units, and an increasing proportion of LAs. The data for 2006/07 for both parts of the sector added together cover about three-quarters of all lettings. Although this is not a complete picture, it is nevertheless likely to be very representative in percentage terms of lettings across the whole sector.

CORE data provide various sets of information about lettings that are relevant to this paper. These are summarised in tables 1 and 2 in appendix 2. Both tables show general needs lettings by LAs and HAs:

- *Table 1* shows what proportion of these lettings were to BME households (including ‘white-other’ households).
- *Table 2* shows the proportion of lettings made to non-UK nationals, dividing these between European (A8 countries and the rest of Europe) and non-European nationals.

The main findings relating to all social housing lettings are that:

- Lettings to BME households are 17 percent of the total.
- Lettings to non-UK nationals are less than five percent.
- Lettings to A8 nationals are less than one percent.

BME lettings are consistent with the percentage of the social housing stock occupied by BME-led households, which is also 17 percent.(^3) There are no equivalent data on the proportions of social housing stock (as opposed to new lettings) occupied by non-UK nationals. Nor is there a reliable estimate for the numbers of non-UK nationals (or, within that figure, of A8 nationals) living in the UK.(^4)

Further analysis of the CORE data for 2006/07 was carried out by David Robinson.(^5) He has shown that the small number of A8 nationals given lettings are much less dependent on benefits than is typically the case – one in five are benefit-dependent compared with half of households in new lettings generally. There is also a wide geographical distribution of these lettings – many are in small towns and rural areas – so that lettings do not reflect the geographical concentration often associated with lettings to BME households.

______________________________________________________________________

(^3) BME households are more prevalent in social housing than white households – 27 percent of BME households are social tenants, whereas 18 percent of all households are social tenants. BME households form nine percent of the population.

(^4) However, the total of A8 nationals accepted on the Worker Registration Scheme, up to September 2007, was 715,000 – clearly lettings and homelessness acceptances are a very small proportion of this total, even accepting that many of the 715,000 will already have left Britain.

(^5) See Robinson, D (2007) ‘European Union Accession State Migrants in Social Housing in England’ in *People, Place and Policy Online*, vol. 1, issue 3. **Summaries in Accession Monitoring Reports**

The latest report, covering the period May 2004-September 2007, summarises the P1E homelessness data for the whole period since accession took place. A8 nationals accounted for 2,518 homelessness decisions, or 0.4 percent of the total, over the 38-month period; of these, a homelessness duty was accepted in 893 cases.

The rising trend in acceptances noted above (albeit in terms of very small total figures) is confirmed by the fact that there were 188 acceptances in the first half of 2007, compared with 138 in the first half of 2006. This trend is likely to reflect factors such as the length of period that A8 nationals might have been here, their eligibility if they lose their job once they have worked for 12 months, and increased awareness of eligibility.

For reasons already explained, the P1E returns on lettings are not now available, and are not included in the latest monitoring report. However, the previous accession monitoring report, covering May 2004-December 2006, does summarise the lettings figures. Over the 32-month period, total LA lettings to A8 nationals were 235, or 0.06 per cent. There is concern that these earlier data may have undercounted the true figure. According to CORE, the LAs providing lettings data in the last full year (ending March 2007) made 376 lettings to A8 nationals in that 12-month period. The CORE data may therefore either confirm that the P1E figures under-represented the true picture, or indicate that numbers are increasing (albeit still a very small percentage of total lets).

5 Other Studies at National Level

A range of national level studies, many focussing on accession state migration, have been published over the last two years. The evidence on the three housing issues we are examining is summarised below.

**Estimating the Scale and Impacts of Migration at Local Level** ICoCo and LGA, 2007

Based on 100 local studies and responses, this report concludes that demand for social housing has, as yet, been low but the costs of increased housing benefit processing and problems of homelessness and destitution are issues in some areas. Most concern at local level is about overcrowding and other effects in the private rented sector (PRS). However, it does report some increase in the numbers of A8 migrants receiving homelessness assistance or being rehoused (eg in Leicester and Southampton).

______________________________________________________________________

6 The reports can be downloaded from [www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/Reports/accession_monitoring_report/](http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/Reports/accession_monitoring_report/) There are also reports on the A2 countries, Bulgaria and Romania, but they contain no housing data. Crossing Borders Audit Commission, 2007 This study relates specifically to migrant workers, and involved a range of methods including local investigations. It concludes that ‘few recent migrant workers are offered social housing tenancies’ although it points to the possible impact on demand, and on homelessness services, in the future. It found that the vast majority of migrant workers are in the private sector, either renting or in tied accommodation provided by employers or agents.

Britain’s Immigrants: An Economic Profile IPPR, 2007 This recent report analysed Labour Force Survey (LFS) data according to country of birth. It is therefore concerned with the foreign-born population as a whole, rather than recent migrants or non-UK citizens. One useful analysis indicates the extent to which foreign-born people are more or less likely to live in social housing than UK-born people (17% of whom do so). The table from the report is reproduced in appendix 3. It shows that some national groups, such as people from Pakistan, Kenya and Poland, are much less likely to live in social housing than the average, while some, such as people from Zimbabwe, Portugal, Turkey and (especially) Somalia are much more likely to do so. The report suggests that the very high proportion of Somalis living in social housing (80 percent) is likely to be because they are accepted refugees. This is partly true, but many are also likely to have entitlement to welfare benefits here because they have moved from other EEA countries such as Holland or Sweden.

Reports on migrant workers in rural areas Two reports, one by the Commission for Rural Communities and the other by Citizens’ Advice, have covered this issue. Both mention concerns about housing issues and the numbers of inquiries about housing and housing benefit, but neither refer to social housing. The CRC report mentions some incidents of homelessness and demand for emergency accommodation. It should be noted that many rural workers would, in principle, be eligible for social housing as they are citizens of older EU member states such as Portugal. However, many of course are working on temporary contracts, are housed by employers or may be unaware of their rights.

Migrants’ Lives beyond the Workplace: The Experience of Central and East Europeans in the UK Spencer, S et al, 2007 Based on interviews with working migrants from A8 countries, this study found none occupying social housing. All were either in tied accommodation or the PRS.

______________________________________________________________________

7 CRC (2007) A8 Migrants in Rural Areas. 8 Citizens’ Advice (2005) Supporting Migrant Workers in Rural Areas. Regional-Level Studies

The Impact of Migration in the South West - Evidence Base SWLGA, 2007 A survey of LAs which reported surprisingly little impact on housing. Only one council, South Hams, reported any real pressure and this was on the private sector. Four councils specifically stated that the impact on housing was minimal or non-existent. However, several LAs reported that migrants were victims of overcrowding, poor conditions and/or extortionate rents, which could create demand for social housing in the future.

Population Mobility and Service Provision: A report for London Councils Travers, T et al, 2007 This survey of London boroughs says that new migration has increased the demand for social housing, and has increased turnover and demand for homelessness accommodation, but without specifying numbers.

A8 Nationals in London Homelessness Services Homeless Link, 2006 Survey of 43 frontline agencies, showing evidence of homelessness and/or destitution in 638 recorded cases. The study shows the results of the restrictions faced by A8 nationals who lose their job within the first twelve months, before they become entitled to welfare benefits and homelessness assistance.

Migrant Workers in the East Midlands Labour Market Warwick Institute for Employment research, 2007 Although not specifically intended to cover housing, this report suggests that the under-representation of lower-skilled migrant workers in the census and the LFS may be due to their use of informal housing arrangements.

Migrant Workers in the East of England East of England Development Agency, 2005 Survey of 52 workers plus contact with local groups, which found the vast majority are in the PRS or employer-provided accommodation. A few Portuguese workers were reported to have accessed social housing (no numbers given).

Economic Impact of Migrant Workers in the West Midlands West Midlands Regional Observatory, 2007 Focuses on economic and labour market issues, but shows that the majority of migrants (about 60 percent) live in the PRS and only a small minority (six percent) in the social rented sector. However, the report speculates that this might increase as migrants become more established in the UK. Local Studies

Local studies of course provide only highly piecemeal evidence, but they can generally be seen as conforming to the patterns illustrated by the national studies and statistics. One of the most interesting is the Robinson study of ‘housing pathways’ in Sheffield, which shows how different migrant groups make use of – or avoid – social housing. Local ‘pathway’ studies were advocated as a means of understanding migrant housing needs and experiences in the CIH guide to Housing and Support Services for Asylum Seekers and Refugees.

Sheffield – The Housing Pathways of New Migrants Robinson, D et al, 2007 The housing experiences of 39 migrants, in four nationality groups, show the extent to which some have succeeded in accessing social housing:

- All but one of the nine Somali respondents were in social housing, after initially being in BIA or private sector accommodation.
- Liberian refugees accepted under the Gateway programme were all (except one) in social housing.
- None of the Pakistani or Polish interviewees were in social housing.

New Migrants in England and their Needs Metropolitan Support Trust, 2007 A report reviewing the position in various towns and cities, including:

- Nottingham – reported problems in meeting the housing needs of accepted refugees (entitled to social housing); economic migrants from A8 countries are looking mainly for private rented rather than social housing.

- Boston - Boston has large numbers of migrant workers, a high proportion of whom (53%) say they want to stay permanently and bring families to join them. There are a number of issues:

  - Shortage of housing for single people.
  - Shortage of affordable housing, though not caused only by immigration.
  - High usage of tied housing may result in destitution when a job is lost.
  - Very limited homelessness facilities. Nevertheless Boston Mayflower (the transfer HA) houses about 200 migrant families – some 6-7 percent of its lettings.

- Leicester – reports ‘fierce competition’ for housing as the city was previously an asylum dispersal area and has also experienced considerable in-migration by Somali people from other EU countries.

- Doncaster – told surveyors that that since HAs ‘are “not obliged” to get involved with new migrants or refugees, they do not provide for them. Since refugees and EU working migrants are legally entitled to access housing and related benefits, this may also indicate a problem with local authority allocations’.

- **Leeds** - In 2003 Leeds Council received a total of 337 applications from people who recorded the cause of their homelessness as being a refugee. Problems are due to the inadequate time period to leave BIA accommodation, and shortage of social housing. Other new migrants have little opportunity to access social housing.

- **Lambeth** – few migrants access social housing because of long waiting lists.

- **Peterborough** – recognises the impact of migration on the local housing, and the number of inquiries about housing received by its New Link advice centre for migrants. (Peterborough has recently published a homelessness strategy which aims to ‘review the impact of migration on the demand for social housing’.)

**Assessing the Local and Regional Impacts of International Migration** CURDS, University of Newcastle, 2006 Study for CLG which took Newcastle and Peterborough as case studies. In Newcastle, it reported no use of social housing although some problems of homelessness among A8 workers. In Peterborough, there is severe pressure on waiting lists but evidently some (unquantified) evidence of migrant workers accessing social housing. However, many also refuse offers because they are not in areas where they want to live.

**Newcastle** Report to Neighbourhood Scrutiny Panel, 9 January 2006 This reported a ‘small but noticeable increase’ in homelessness applications from A8 nationals and some applications from refugees leaving accommodation provided by BIA.

**Migrant Workers in Leicester** Leicester City Council, 2007 This reported the presence of several thousand migrant workers in Leicester, with some impact on homelessness services and rehousing. Over the period April 2005 – December 2006, there had been 135 households from A8 countries accessing the housing register, of which 18 were housed. Homelessness applications totalled 21, of which eight were accepted (and presumably led to moves into temporary accommodation).

**Mapping New Migrant Communities in the Vale of White Horse District** Vale of White Horse, 2007 Report on housing demand from A8 and A2 nationals, showing that numbers coming onto the housing register are small – 16 applicants, all but one from Poland. The Polish applicants represent 1.4 percent of the register. Some 540 A8 nationals had registered to work in the district since May 2004. Polish Workers in Bristol – A Summary of Evidence Bristol City Council, 2006 States that migrant workers are not making demands on council housing, predominantly they are finding their own private sector accommodation or are having accommodation provided for them by their employers. While the homelessness service in Bristol expected to see an increase of demand on their services due to recent migration, no such upsurge appears to have taken place.

Polish Community in Bristol and South Gloucestershire Bristol City Council et al, 2007 Survey showing that 409 interviewees (86%) rent their home privately. One person rents from the LA and 55 people live with family or friends. Ten people (2%) own their own home. The report states that ‘migrant workers are not making demands on council housing’.

Slough New Migrant Study Slough Borough Council, 2006 Eight in ten new migrants in Slough are living in private rented accommodation, others are living with family and friends (7%) and a few (5%) live in accommodation provided by their employer. Conditions are generally reported as good.

Selby – Mapping Migrant Workers Selby Communities and District Industrial Mission, 2005 Reports considerable problems in PRS and tied accommodation, but no mention of demand for or use of social housing.

Hyndburn, Lancashire IDeA, 2007 Responding to a crisis where 200 Polish workers were suddenly made redundant, a local housing association found housing through private sector leasing and some of the workers subsequently became tenants. Multi-agency action assisted most of the workers to regain jobs.

North Somerset BME Housing Needs Study Blackaby, B, 2007 This study looks at BME needs generally and does not distinguish recent migrants (N Somerset does not have large BME communities, but a scattering of BME residents – 3.3 per cent of the population - including recent migrants). In 2005/06, seven percent of lettings went to BME households, or 43 lettings. In terms of likely ‘new migrant’ nationalities though, Polish people included in the survey carried out for this study were almost all in the PRS. The biggest ethnic group declaring social housing as their tenancy were 11 Irish households. However, just over half the respondents in the survey who mentioned a desire to move house, would prefer social housing as their next accommodation.

**Willow Park, Manchester** Willow Park Housing Trust, 2007 A study was carried out to respond to the growing diversity of this large, former council housing estate, transferred to the Trust in 1999 (and, at the time, an area of multiple deprivation and low housing demand). The BME population had been five percent in the 2001 census, but doubled to ten percent by 2006. Lettings to BME households and ‘new communities’ also grew from less than five percent, to 15 percent. New arrivals appear to be mainly from Africa (Somalia and Nigeria), Eastern Europe (Poland), and South India (Kerala State) - some are professional, working in hospitals and at Manchester Airport.

**Dynamics of Migrant Labour in South Lincolnshire** South Holland DC, 2006 Extensive survey of migrant workers which indicates that 50 percent live in the PRS, and about a quarter in accommodation provided by employers. Discusses impact on local housing market but without saying specifically what use (if any) is made of social housing by those not accommodated in these two main ways.

**New Communities Mapping Project, North Lincolnshire** North Lincolnshire DC, 2005 Used drop-in sessions and 50 face-to-face interviews – estimates there are 1100-1500 migrant workers from various countries, but all those interviewed were housed in the PRS.

**Birmingham/Sandwell – EU Accession States – Economic Migrants** Urban Living, 2006 Used a focus group of 14 Polish migrants to explore housing issues – all were living in the PRS, most aimed to return to Poland after a couple of years in the UK.

**Gateway Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder (Hull) – Migrant Workers** 2005 Survey of 100 migrant workers from a range of countries (not only Europe). Almost 70 percent were living in the PRS; 17 percent reported renting through an agent (and this was thought to include some housing associations). Often accommodation was arranged by employers and was generally regarded as satisfactory. No reported use of homelessness services. **Hull and East Riding – Migrant workers – Impact on local areas and services – Report to the Audit Commission** Matthews, R (2006) Based on interviews with groups dealing with migrant workers – almost all are reported to live in the PRS. Says that the area has been able to absorb migrant workers because of the availability of suitable housing, but this may change.

**Economic Migration to Housing Market Renewal Areas in NW England – study of Merseyside and Oldham/Rochdale** Merseyside Inclusion Observatory, 2007 Based on interviews with migrants and with service providers, this study concludes that A8 migrants do not appear to be displacing existing residents from available housing stock in any significant numbers. Almost all interviewees lived in the PRS. However, there is evidence emerging that a small number are now joining LA / HA waiting lists (sometimes with a view to exercising the ‘right to buy’).

**East European Nationals Living in Southampton** Southampton City Council, 2007 Reports ‘a small but increasing number of East Europeans applying for social housing’. In the two years up to November 2006 there had been 128 accepted applications to the council’s choice-based lettings scheme (one percent of the total), of which nine cases had been housed (all in unpopular areas). There are few reported applications for homelessness assistance.

8 Conclusions

The evidence from local studies, although very patchy, seems to conform with and confirm the available evidence from the two main national datasets on housing allocations and homelessness. The general evidence is that A8 migrants have so far made little use of social housing, but that there are now small numbers entering the social housing system – usually concentrated in particular places. There is some suggestion that use will grow as migrants decide to stay longer-term or apply for social housing because of poor conditions in the private rented sector.

As far as the broader range of more recent migrants is concerned, including refugees and economic migrants that are not from the EU accession states, there is also evidence of some use of social housing - again, particularly in some localities. However, whereas there have been several recent local studies (and national data sets) responding to the impact of EU accession on housing, there are far fewer sources of information on other aspects of new migration. The census categories are not helpful in this respect and whereas data sets such as the LFS provide information, it is not specifically related to new migration.

## Appendix 1 – Categories of Migrant included in the Paper

### Forced migrants – Asylum Seekers and Refugees

| Category | Description | |-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **Asylum** | This is the protection under United Nations conventions, given by one country to people from another, who are often fleeing persecution, torture or war. | | **Asylum seekers**| People who have applied for asylum, but whose cases have not yet been decided or are subject to legal appeal, and in most cases are not eligible for normal welfare benefits or housing assistance, only that provided directly by the BIA. | | **Refugees** | People who have been granted refugee status, or leave to stay in Britain - and who have rights to housing, to work, and many of the other rights of full citizens. | | | Small numbers of people have been admitted to Britain each year under the Gateway programme, which gives refugee status to identified people from refugee camps, without passing through the ‘asylum seeker’ stage. These refugees are normally housed by LAs or HAs in specific areas. |

### Migration from Europe

| Category | Description | |-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **EEA nationals** | As well as being in the European Union, Britain is also part of the ‘European Economic Area’ (EEA) which extends rights to live and work in Britain to citizens of the EU but also to certain non-EU countries - Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. | | | In general, residents of the EEA are free to come to Britain to work without any restrictions. They can also come to Britain to live for other reasons (such as to study or retire). | | | Those that have worked and lived in Britain for a minimum qualifying period (normally one year’s work and three years residence – but varies according to the circumstances) can acquire a right of permanent residence. In exercising any of these rights there is also a right to bring family members. | | **Accession states** | Special rules apply though to accession states – certain countries which joined the EU recently (but not Malta or Cyprus, which are treated the same as the rest of the EEA). There are two special groups of accession states. | | **A8 nationals** | The A8 countries are the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. People from those countries taking up new employment in the UK have to register under the Worker Registration Scheme for the first 12 months. Except if they become unemployed in their first 12 months, A8 nationals have the same housing rights as other EEA nationals. | | **A2 nationals** | People from the two countries (Bulgaria and Romania) which acceded to the EU in 2007 have more limited rights to work. Skilled workers whose employer has obtained a work permit for them, or who qualify under | another scheme, can enter freely. But low-skilled migration from Bulgaria and Romania is restricted to those sectors of the economy where the UK already has low-skilled schemes and is subject to a quota which will not exceed 20,000 workers per year.

A2 workers on these schemes have rights to work limited to six months, and their rights to housing and welfare benefits are more restricted.

| Other Migration | |-----------------| | **Other work-related migration** | Although people from outside the EEA have more limited opportunities to gain entry to live in the UK, the rules are complex. Specific categories of working people (eg journalists, sportsmen/women, ministers of religion) are able to work here if they satisfy the rules. Many categories of people require work permits, for which their employer has to apply. | | **Migration for other reasons** | There is also a scheme called the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme through which people who qualify can come to look for work, without a permit. | | | Apart from work and asylum, the two main reasons why people from the rest of the world might be permitted to enter and live in the UK are to study and for family reasons (eg a person getting married, or an elderly relative coming to live with a family member here and supported by them). | | | In general, initial entry is conditional on their having ‘no recourse to public funds’, which means they are not entitled to housing assistance or welfare benefits. | Appendix 2 - Summary of CORE data on General Needs Lettings, 2006/07

Table 1: All Lettings and Lettings to BME Households

| Sector | All Lettings | BME households | |-------------------------|--------------|----------------| | | total | % of all lettings | total | % of all lettings | | Housing associations | 125,688 | 100 | 21,526 | 17 | | Local authorities | 52,448 | 100 | 9,130 | 17 | | Total social sector | 178,136 | 100 | 30,656 | 17 |

Note: 'BME households' includes 'white-other' households.

Table 2: Lettings to Non-UK Nationals

| Sector | Total lettings to all non-UK nationals | Lettings to nationals of European countries (EEA) | Lettings to nationals from the Rest of the World | |-------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | | total | % of all lettings | total | % of all lettings | total | % of all lettings | total | % of all lettings | | Housing associations | 5,518 | 4.4 | 1,167 | 0.9 | 1,149 | 0.9 | 3,202 | 2.6 | | Local authorities | 2,050 | 4.5 | 376 | 0.8 | 403 | 0.9 | 1,271 | 2.8 | | Total social sector | 7,568 | 4.4 | 1,543 | 0.9 | 1,552 | 0.9 | 4,473 | 2.6 |

Note: For definition of A8 and EEA countries, see appendix 1. For the LA data, there were fewer recorded responses to the nationality question (45,022) than for the question on ethnicity (52,448), therefore the percentages relate to this smaller total. Appendix 3 – Proportion of people of selected countries of birth living in social housing

Reproduced from IPPR (2007) *Britain’s Immigrants: An Economic Profile.*

Note: Countries are only included where there was significant representation of the appropriate group in the Labour Force Survey.

Table 5.13. Proportion of population living in social housing, by country of birth, 2005/06

| Rank | Country of birth | Living in local authority or housing association housing | |------|------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | 1= | Australia | 5% | | 1= | France | 5% | | 1= | USA | 5% | | 4= | Poland | 9% | | 4= | India | 9% | | 4= | South Africa | 8% | | 4= | Canada | 8% | | 8 | China | 9% | | 9 | Italy | 10% | | 10 | Kenya | 12% | | 11 | Sri Lanka | 14% | | 12= | Pakistan | 15% | | 12= | Philippines | 15% | | 14 | Cyprus | 16% | | 15= | UK | 17% | | 16 | Zimbabwe | 20% | | 17= | Republic of Ireland | 21% | | 17= | Uganda | 21% | | 19 | Nigeria | 29% | | 20 | Iran | 33% | | 21 | Jamaica | 35% | | 22 | Ghana | 39% | | 23 | Portugal | 40% | | 24 | Bangladesh | 41% | | 25 | Turkey | 49% | | 26 | Somalia | 80% |

Source: LFS and IPPR calculations